Zimmerman Hearing – 9am EST. Discussion Thread

Today the Defense and Prosecution will be back in court to discuss the various motions filed by both the Defense and the Prosecution:

Judge Nelson

Here are some *possible* Links to the Hearing:

Hat Tip Rumpole for the list.
About these ads
This entry was posted in George Zimmerman Open Thread, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

553 Responses to Zimmerman Hearing – 9am EST. Discussion Thread

  1. Angel says:

    “As everyone knows, or certainly ought to know, the law of cause and effect is not terminated at death, but is eternal in duration and universal in scope, eventually bringing to all their just deserts. Divine Justice is administered through this law, and both evil and good return to their originator. Just as in the realm of physics “action and reaction are equal,” so on the moral plane cause and effect are equal.” Anonymous.

    Justice will be served even though some may not have gotten the memo. Prayers for GZ and family and the Martin family as well. Peace.

    Hopefully, I will get to see a good summary of today’s proceeding when I get off from work :-)

  2. Sharon says:

    Judge Nelson just looks like such a hausfrau–and always seems sleepy. I hope she shocks us all with her rapier-like wisdom, peerleess insight and legal shrewdness today. That would just be the absolute best kind of day.

  3. libby says:

    This woman reminds me so much of my mother (and not just in phycial appearance) in that in her profession, she is supposed to be a nuetral party

  4. boutis says:

    So? Does everyone expect Crump’s surrogate, Bernie “Holla for a Dolla” de la Rosa to be up to his usual antics this morning?

    • TonysThoughts says:

      yes he is, lol , Nelson I think would love to jump his bones. Look at how she looks at him and the way she smiles when he speaks at her. Whats up with the officer in the back, his has a very odd head bob going on.

  5. nettles18 says:

    Bob Kealing is reporting security gates are up at the courthouse.

  6. mung says:

    Anyone see Nasty’s interview on Fox last night? She looked like she was on drugs. Pupils as big as saucers and face was really gaunt. Not at all like the pictures I have seen or previous interviews.

  7. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    Only a handful of women in front of courthouse. Singing upbeat songs and prayer is just starting. I’m watching it on WESH channel 2. Martin family not going to be in Seminole co today.

  8. mung says:

    Any chance of an audio only feed? I might be able to listen at work depending on the type of feed. Video is usually blocked though.

  9. HughStone says:

    Can anyone hear what they are saying?

  10. beartruefaith says:

    I’m guessing the Martin family does not want to be in Seminole county today. Any sign of Crump?

  11. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    Crump is in the courtroom.

  12. beartruefaith says:

    I haven’t commented here before but have been following this thread quite a bit.

  13. John Galt says:

    Housekeeping: MOM submits written orders that the judge previously ruled on orally from the bench. It is a really good thing to be the attorney drafting the orders.

  14. maggiemoowho says:

    She denied motions already? Is that what MOM just read back to her?

  15. John Galt says:

    7-11 subpoena order granted with confidentiality provision. MOM to prepare written order.

  16. Chip Bennett says:

    Live feed cut out. Was the granted motion one of the subpoenas?

  17. TandCrumpettes says:

    haha, Nelson just spanked Bernie a little. “There’s color photos in MY copy!”

  18. mung says:

    Wow, I was able to get a feed from Fox to work.

  19. HughStone says:

    BDLR had the gall to cry about the defense giving him black & white copies of GZ face in there motion. LOL

  20. John Galt says:

    BDLR on cell phone: time consuming, worked with defense, nobody could breakin, agent explained attempts to access phone, sent to sheriff’s office in California, sent back, sent to Cellebrite in NJ, defense made arrangements to go to NJ, but then didn’t. No mention of missing 2/26 data.

    BDLR said something about supplementing discovery this morning. Not sure about what.

  21. HughStone says:

    Crump has his attorney in the courtroom!

  22. John Galt says:

    Crump present in courtroom. BDLR wants the Crump depo to be limited only to the topic of the interview of W8.

  23. mung says:

    So far it is, I am doing everything I should do. Bernie always sounds like he is a kid who got in trouble and is whining “but mommy, I didn’t do anything wrong, it was his fault I had to punch him in the face”.

  24. boutis says:

    Bernie really is a worm. What a hypocrite.

  25. ejarra says:

    Didn’t BLDR tell Nelson he’d be brief? I guess brief is a wiggle word that has a different meaning for me.

  26. TandCrumpettes says:

    I don’t think ‘ol Bern knows the definition of “ironic.” He sure likes to use it, though.

  27. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    Bernie is whining that they have to come all the way to Seminole co for depos, etc. Take it up with the gov and atty general AND your boss Corey, Bernie. You people should not have gotten involved in business of Seminole County. Now complaining about defense getting publicty and having their own website. You can hear the frustration and anger in his voice. He is just rambling on and on and saying nothing except “we object” ( to anything defense wants or needs).

  28. John Galt says:

    BDLR whining about defense web site and facebook. Filed two motions to gag. BDLR attempts, but fails to relate defense publicity efforts to delay of trial. BDLR seems obsessive about avoiding sunlight.

  29. froggielegs says:

    OMG Bernie sounds like a whining 2 year old

  30. HughStone says:

    Denied motion to continue.

  31. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    Motion to Continue denied. MOM Just got grounds for appeal!

    • boutis says:

      And he very politely suggested to her that is what he will be filing. “Style of discovery” of this court is directed at her. Now she is backing up.

  32. boutis says:

    This judge is purposefully dense.

  33. John Galt says:

    Nelson denies motion to continue. MOM clarifies that he didn’t tell the court he would be ready for trial in June.

    Motion for specific discovery. MOM argues that State must gather information in the possession of other state agencies. MOM has a breakthrough: “These are specific discovery violations.”

    MOM argues for FDLE biographic information for Martin family and W8. Nelson confused, apparently has not read the papers.

    BDLR: W8 innocent girl targeted, not the correct person. BDLR wants to force MOM to depose W8 to get social media account info.

    Nelson: court reporter, W8 shows ID, telephone depo to obtain social media account info.

    BDLR wants info confidential. MOM: has to put info into subpoenas.

    Nelson: same procedure applies to Martin family.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      O’Mara is clearly putting ducks in a row for an obvious appeal of Nelson.

      Did she miss the part where the defense has had the cell phone data for all of two weeks?

      • I agree. Besides, he will have enough evidence for an aquittal at trial. I think he is just building his civil cases now.

      • John Galt says:

        “O’Mara is clearly putting ducks in a row for an obvious appeal of Nelson.”

        Yes, the defense will probably file a motion detailing discovery violations, requiring a Richardson hearing. I think the problem is that Nelson’s discovery orders are not appealable before trial.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Yes, the defense will probably file a motion detailing discovery violations, requiring a Richardson hearing. I think the problem is that Nelson’s discovery orders are not appealable before trial.

          That was what I was unsure of: which of Nelson’s rulings are appealable, and when?

          For example: it is absolutely ludicrous that the State would have the cell phone since the day of the incident, failed to obtain its data until a month after the October hearing at which the trial date was set, failed to deliver those data to the defense until the third week of January, and the Judge, in the first week of February, admonishes the Defense that they have had plenty of time to get an expert witness to review discovery information that they’ve had for only two weeks – and that they would be able to procure said expert witness in time for the witness to impart his expertise before the next court hearing.

          Can the defense appeal the denial of motion to continue? Or will they just pursue the discovery violations that will mandate a Richardson hearing – and then potentially appeal or re-file the motion to continue after that hearing?

          Hopefully we’ll get to see O’Mara’s green and blue “graphical representation” of the State’s feet-dragging/stone-walling with respect to discovery.

  34. Eric says:

    Is it just me or does the judge look like a female version of Chris Farley? I’m waiting for her to flip out and crash through a table.

  35. ejarra says:

    How dense is she? How would W8 know when the state found out about her?

  36. John Galt says:

    Motion to obtain information on California cell phone analysis. BDLR provided info this morning. MOM reading supplemental discovery material in court for the first time. A disk is included in the supplemental discovery material.

    • John Galt says:

      MOM: chain of custody info missing.

      BDLR: will provide complete chain of custody.

      Nelson: chain of custody by Friday, to include a description of work performed.

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        “BDLR: will provide complete chain of custody”

        Yeah, bt WHEN? At the appeal? This judge is WATCHING the prosecution stall, stall, stall, and THEN says that the defense has known about the trial date since October? GET SERIOUS!

  37. HughStone says:

    “Perry Kuhl” Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office is the guy who had the phone in Cali.

    • HughStone says:

      Read the last line.


      Last week I was able to connect with Detective Perry Kuhl of Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, who guided me through the way in which his agency is using Shoutpoint’s software. When I spoke with Kuhl, he was quick to note both of those benefits.

      “It’s mobile — I don’t have to be at my department to use it,” Detective Kuhl explained. “Because it’s Internet access to the interface… I can be sitting in a house doing surveillance and we can initiate the call from a half a block away to all the various people involved in the investigation,” he said.

      Pretty Much ‘Cop Proof’
      “If we’re doing some sort of rape investigation,” Kuhl continued, “we like to spoof those calls. We do have cold accounts — cold lines — but when I use these lines the number will pop up on the other end as being restricted or unknown. If we’re calling a suspect, we want him to pick up so we can engage him in conversation. He’s not picking up — if he’s not answering his phone because it’s displaying an unknown number — then our investigation is stalled. If we can pop something in there where we embed the name of someone in his contacts, we’re good to go.”

    • AghastInFL says:

      Det. Kuhl is also a member of the HTCAC (High Technology Crime Advisory Committee) and specializes in cell phone forensics; from October 2011:

      D. Cell Phone Forensics/Investigations

      Detective Perry Kuhl from the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department gave a presentation about the new cell phone forensics course at the DOJ Advanced Training Center. The course is designed to train law enforcement officials on how to find information on seized cell phones and extract it for use in the prosecution of suspects.

  38. mung says:

    This seems to be a big hide the shell game.

  39. Sal Paradise says:

    Man, I hope I never end up in court. She seems purposely leaning towards the prosecution. This is not my area of expertise but it appears she doesn’t like MOM and doesn’t want to hear anything he has to say. The prosecutor seems not to be able to hand over anything without specific strings attached. Is this normal?

  40. John Galt says:

    MOM: attempts to raises Richardson issue: can’t have experts available in time allotted.

  41. HughStone says:

    Crump has a white lawyer.

  42. froggielegs says:

    Who is this guy? Someone was at my door and I missed who this is.

    • ejarra says:

      Froggie you’re back! YEAH! Crump’s lawyer.

      • froggielegs says:

        HI Ejarra yes I am back. Have had a lot of family issues that have prevented my from doing much online participating.

        Oh Crump got himself a lawyer huh? I have a feeling she will rule against the defense. I have zero confidence in this judge.

  43. thehoff71 says:

    Ok, at this point it is very obvious that there is a serious issue in this Courtroom. Although Mark O’Mara stated “violations” of discovery, there should have been some sort of motion or official complaint brought forward. At what point is the DCA going to get involved in this mess? This is a train wreck of Prosecutorial Misconduct and Reversable Error.

  44. Chip Bennett says:

    Nelson 15 minutes ago:

    “Defense needs to stop delaying and spinning their wheels. You have plenty of time to get things done. Motion to continue denied.”

    Nelson just now:

    “Is defense amenable to postponing today’s scheduled deposition of Mr. Crump, so that we all can read the affidavit that Crump’s lawyer just gave us this morning?’

  45. Reptile says:

    Time to get another judge. Nelson denied the trial delay.

  46. HughStone says:

    Crump trying to weasel out the deposition after court today. So he had to be at the courthouse.
    Not for TM birthday.

  47. auscitizenmom says:

    I think this is the big “surprise” that Nat was referring to.

    • mung says:

      Surprise, Crump is afraid the truth will come out so he is trying to weasel out of being disposed.

      • arkansasmimi says:

        but I thought the Judge said Chump can be deposed? I am confused

        • mung says:

          She is going to review the document to see if it answers all of the questions she thinks it should answer then rule that it does and make West file a motion with specific questions that they want to dispose on. Then she will deny that and West will have to appeal it and have them force Crump to disclose what he really knows.

  48. Well if you ask me, the fix is in. I just cant believe this is happening in America.

  49. HughStone says:

    Crump depo postponed.

     photo 19512004_zps44bdf5f4.png

    • boutis says:

      Not just postponed but deposition denied with probably a baloney “statement” by his lawyer substituted. Surely this can be appealed. The only good think is that his lawyer is admitting that he is in it for money with his “involvement” in other aspects of the case. It will be a battle of criminal vs civil rules. Crump wants to excused because he is involved in the Martin’s civil suits.

      • boutis says:

        I hope Crump’s lawyer is getting his fee up front.

      • Ugh says:

        Who will Crump and company sue? GZ has nothing. Can local pd be sued? The state?

        • mung says:

          HOA, Insurance company, Kel Tec, bullet manufacturer, place that did George’s CWP course, anyone he can even remotely connect to this.

        • jello333 says:

          Crump already knows they won’t be suing anyone. In fact, it’s gonna be the other way around. But he’s gonna keep on SAYING they’re looking at lawsuits, so he can continue to claim he’s Sybrina/Tracy’s lawyer, in an attempt to hide behind A/C privilege. THAT’s what that’s all about.

          • rumpole2 says:

            He’s not Dee Dee’s lawyer… so no privilege for a lot of what he needs to be deposed on.
            IANAL but I would think that privileged information over (imaginary) civil matters is not a cover in a criminal case… and even if he can claim that… then that can be covered in a deposition with certain questions not answered… but there is a LOT he can and should answer…. about his OWN behaviour and not that of his clients.

            • jello333 says:

              Oh I know, you’re right. I said that’s what Crump is TRYING to do, NOT that he’ll succeed. He may succeed with Nelson for awhile, but in the end, he’ll have to talk. If Nelson won’t make him, the appeals court will.

      • John Galt says:

        “with probably a baloney “statement” by his lawyer substituted.”

        Not just any lawyer. I think Blackwell announced that he was a very senior officer of the court. Bizarre. I have never seen anything like that before.

  50. John Galt says:

    Attorney Blackwell: represents Parks & Clrump and Crump.

    Why didn’t he file written appearance and motion? Just rolls into court with an oral motion. WTF?

    Blackwell: Crump represents Martin family with respect to several potential claims. Crump located
    W8. Crump is a lawyer with pending claims. State didn’t list Crump as witness under Rule 3.220.

    Nelson: proposes depo with written questions in advance.

    Blackwell: cuts Nelson off. He filed 15 page affidavit this morning. WTF?
    Blackwell received subpoena to depose Crump for all purposes. Crump is the private attorney general. Can not depose the prosecutor. Crump’s depo was set today.

    Nelson: Her attention was to limit depo . . . . .

    West: Crump’s deposition was discussed, scheduled in advance. Requests that judge read the affidavit during recess and reconvene.

    Nelson: intention that deposition was to be limited to topic of W8. Will not order recess. Postponing Crump deposition. Hearing time will be made available if needed.

    Blackwell: Told MOM he should not depose Crump and would prepare an affidavit to protect attorney client and work-produce privileges. Received deposition notice yesterday.

    Nelson: Review affidavit prior to determining deposition.

    West: Need to depose Crump.

    Nelson: File a motion.

    West: Directs attention to Rule 3.220 (h)(a). Defense can depose Crump even though not on witness list.

    Nelson: Needs to read affidavit. Will set hearing to address issue if needed.

    • John Galt says:

      3.220 (h) (A)

      The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category A witness or listed by a co-defendant as a witness to be called at a joint trial or hearing. After receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged. The prosecutor may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the defendant to be called at a trial or hearing.

      • boutis says:

        Judge “Slow” is going to have to study up on stuff that comes up in her court weekly. I wonder if she has long term memory problems. Or she is waiting on a call from someone higher up on how she is supposed to rule.

        MOM and West are loosing patience with her. They were much nastier to her today.

      • debfrmhell says:

        What she has failed to realize that because of the way that Crump has inserted himself into the case with regards to how he has handled W8 that he ceased to represent the interest of the family and it is a direct result of his actions that have caused him to become a witness instead. And now he gets to hide behind attorney/client privilege.

        I really cannot wait for the 15 page affidavit to be come available. It should be posted in a couple of days, right?

          • tara says:

            Heh, he’s reviewed the operating instructions of his voice recorder (8-t).

            His statement about DeeDee is interesting:

            On March 18, 2012, our continued vigilance bore fruit and I learned for the first time that, based on phone records only then recently made available, Trayvon was having a conversation on his cell phone – with, as I would later learn, the young lady whom the State now refers to as “Witness 8″

            So Crump is officially stating that he didn’t know who DeeDee was until after Mar 18. And yet DeeDee was at Trademark’s funeral (according to Ronquavis) and met Trademark’s family, a “formal meeting”. Someone arranged that meeting. Someone knew who DeeDee was. If we were to find some evidence that Crump actually met DeeDee at the funeral or at any time prior to Mar 18, what would the impact be?

            • tara says:

              Also notable, the complete absence in his affidavit of the word “minor” when referring to DeeDee.

              What happened, Crump? Changed your mind about her age? So did you deliberately lie to the media to garner sympathy from the public?

            • tara says:

              Crump states on page 10 that he “needed the consent of Witness 8 and her family” in order to record the interview. He wouldn’t need the consent of her family if she were 18, would he?

              • boricuafudd says:

                The issue to me is that while statements made to the media may be admissable as impeachment material, certainly embarrassing they do not constitute a crime by themselves. For instance, Crump can claim that he was under the impression that she was a minor, since she was TM’s “friend” and he was minor. At the same time it could be proven that Crump spoke to her at the funeral and he can say that just like his daddy TM had a lot of friends. Both of these explanations while outlandish, are plausible, enough that he would skate.

                • tara says:

                  He explicitly stated that she was 16, so did Matt Gutman, and so did Daryl Parks. This won’t be a problem for them?

                  • boricuafudd says:

                    I’m sorry your honor, we were mislead, as an esteem officer of the court and private Attorney General I would never intentionally lie to the court. “wink”

                    The judge of course you wouldn’t.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Let’s follow this “attorney general” and “agent of the prosecution” thing to its logical conclusion, shall we?

      If Crump is harboring client-privileged information, he would only need to do so because such information is damaging to his client. It is logical to conclude that any evidence damaging to the family of Martin is plausibly exculpatory for Zimmerman.

      But if Crump is an agent of the State, any such information that is exculpatory to the defendant becomes Brady material, and Crump would thus be compelled to divulge that information to the defense.

      So, sure, Crump: let’s play that game! You can be an agent of the State, and Zimmerman gets the goods on all of the information that you have that is damaging to the State’s case against him.

      • John Galt says:

        “Let’s follow this “attorney general” and “agent of the prosecution” thing to its logical conclusion, shall we?”

        Let’s follow it to a logical beginning: a written motion and response, with supporting case law.

  51. mung says:

    Folks, I think it is time to start to request that our elected representatives look into the way the state is dealing with this case. There are going to be several appeals involved because the judge refuses to address any of the misconduct.

    • libby says:

      I dare say I am repeating myself. forgive me if you will
      Another judge with blinders on.
      I somehow see a new judge in George’s future

  52. Eric says:

    Such BS.

  53. boricuafudd says:

    So much for the 48 hour rule. MOM, West and Nelson snookered again.

  54. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    Yep, “The fix is in”. Looks like that stringy haired judge would like to sentence George to the max right now. She is even worse than Lester. APPEAL, APPEAL, APPEAL!

  55. rumpole2 says:

    I think it’s clear the fix is in… Crump is being shielded.
    West pointed out that the defence is entitled to Depose a witness with material information WITHOUT leave of the court!!!
    It is NUTS to postpone Crumps Deposition.

    And what happened to the Nelson “2 day rule” seems 2 minutes is OK for Crumps lawyer???

    • John Galt says:

      Seems very strange to me. Blackwell walked into court, unscheduled, verbally entered his appearance and verbally moved to quash the subpoena for Crump’s deposition on the grounds that Crump is acting as a private attorney general and as a prosecutor, should not be deposed. Blackwell also contended that Crump is a lawyer asserting pending civil claims on behalf of the Martin family and thus has information protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

      I expect a motion to depose Crump from West.

  56. John Galt says:

    No mention of missing 2/26 phone data by anyone.

  57. ejarra says:

    With all the weight gain talk, I expected a larger GZ. He looks ok to me.

  58. ottawa925 says:

    Wasn’t sure before … but am now: THEY got to Nelson.

  59. This judge is blatantly bias against the defense. What the heck gives?? Are there no honest people in Florida anymore?

  60. partyof0 says:

    The “Judge” actually has to go over something…not the evidence against the defendant…thats not important…she has to look over…with a fine tooth comb…whether Crump…who has nothing to do with the case…who is NOW a psuedo attorney for the prosecution…being an attorney for the family..can be deposed…

    • boricuafudd says:

      Crump’s own attorney called him a prosecutor for the state with a straight face, then cited law that prosecutors could not be deposed.

      • rumpole2 says:

        Referred too him as “A Private Attorney General” :D

        • boutis says:

          An appeals court is not going to be amused with that. He is a private citizen, a witness in a criminal prosecution. He is the attorney in the civil cases. Two different matters in law. I do not think Crump comprehends that.

          • boricuafudd says:

            It sounds good to the TM supporters, and gives Crump standing that he does not deserve.

            • boutis says:

              Well I can only hope that when the baloney about his representing the Martin’s is argued that the appeals court says that is civil and not at issue, we are dealing with a criminal case and he is a blankety-blank witness in a criminal case. The Sixth Amendment trumps Crump’s ambulance chasing.

          • mung says:

            Well the private grand jury has already decided that this case shouldn’t go to trial, so can we all go present that to the court?

          • John Galt says:

            Witness, Witness Prodder, Witness Statement Recording Editor, Private Attorney General, Private Prosecutor, and Private Attorney representing Martin Family (1) on a contingent fee basis in pursuit of potentially lucrative civil claims the success of which hinges upon results of a criminal immunity hearing and (2) advising Martin Family with respect to providing and denying information to police investigation.

            Anybody see any conflicts problem?

            • howie says:

              I am glad to see that the blending of the civil and criminal actions are coming to light at last. They promoted the frame up in order to further the civil action. It is mind boggling.

    • boutis says:

      This will be appealed as will the deny of motion to delay. She knows this. Maybe she wants off the case like Lester.

      • selfdefenseadvocate says:

        Excellent point boutis. I just can’t believe that even this lazy, stringy haired judge could be so biased and incopetent.

      • howie says:

        She must have him in the back room telling her what to do.

      • jello333 says:

        And in the appeal, they should also ask them to assign a special pre-trial judge, just as they asked Nelson to do at the beginning. She has CLEARLY proven she’s not capable of handling this herself. So yeah, several things to appeal: the continuance motion ruling; other rulings on various issues, esp. Crump depo; getting a special pre-trial/discovery judge. No need to try to get Nelson totally kicked from the case, but the appeals court may decide to do that on their own. ;)

      • MJW says:

        The denial of a motion to continue can’t be appealed prior to trial according to Smith v. State, 187 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA1966).

    • howie says:

      He is not a lawyer for a dead guy.

  61. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    It is really scarey that such a lazy incompetent judge can have so much power.

  62. arkansasmimi says:

    Missed all but last few minutes, but I can tell now wasnt good…hope i am wrong

  63. diwataman says:

    Wasn’t able to watch it but judging by the comments good thing no one bet me an e-cookie.

    • howie says:

      Sounds like it went like I figgered it would. More appeals. This whole case will have to be tried in appeals court.

    • rumpole2 says:

      Sure was a lucky escape…. I at lest have my e-cookies intact :D
      I would never renege on a bet… so I do fear I might be down an e-cake in April. :(

    • Rumpole owes you an E-cake due to Ben crump appearing within the courtroom. He’s hinted that you’re likely to share said E-cake.

      • rumpole2 says:

        There was NEVER a bet on Crump turning up in court!!!!

        There was a POLL and I said (several times) it was a 50/50 coin toss thing.
        I admit I was WRONG (That has happened once before) :D

        But no cake was ever at risk on this……

      • rumpole2 says:

        The cake I was talking about that Dman MIGHT share was the one when the Imunity hearing ends…. since you have expressed the same view as me (which I am now nervous about) you should bet Dman yourself.

  64. rumpole2 says:

    What happened to Subpoena for Matt Guttman’s recording(s)

    • mung says:

      Maybe he is working with the defense to get them turned over? I am sure ABC doesn’t want to be seen as stopping any of that.

    • LetJusticePrevail says:

      THANK YOU! The ABC subpoena, to me, seems FAR more important than the 7-11 subpoena (which equates to chasing an *unknown*) because the ABC recording tightens the noose around the neck of the scheme team. Did I miss something, or was the ABC motion not even heard?

  65. partyof0 says:

    A “Trial/Lynching” is cheaper than future Riots…long live the economy of Florida.
    Judge….if you want your pension…this GOES to trial…..

  66. mung says:

    Chip, do you see any way that any of this gets resolved without going to appeal at this point? Also when the people appointed by the governor are the ones breaking the law, who is it that files the charges against them? I don’t see any way that the misconduct can be addressed without bringing in the feds.

    • selfdefenseadvocate says:

      I sure would like to see Don West run for Govenor in the next election. Maybe he could clean up some of the corruption in the Florida Judicial system.

  67. gannasview says:

    My grandmother can see George is being railroaded and she has been dead for 25 years! What is wrong with the “officers of the court” in the state of Flordia? I think the judge must have gotten her law degree, on sale, at the Dollar Store!

  68. auscitizenmom says:

    I am furious that the judge accepted that request to postpone or cancel the deposition of Crump on the spot when she has been so tough on the defense about the 48 hour rule. This was definitely underhanded.

  69. RockyMtnMama says:

    I think West and O’Mara need to take the judge at her word now, and call her judicial assistant to set a hearing every time the State tries to delay them over anything or they find out the state is withholding. Stop asking the State for stuff multiple times. Just file a motion to compel. When the judge starts having to hear motions every other day, maybe she’ll realize what’s going on.

    • mung says:

      That is a very good point!

    • boricuafudd says:

      The prosecution seems to be playing the minimalistic game, they provide as little as possible. Just enough to get by. When the defense complains they say we gave them what we have, until the defense finds otherwise, at that point they go OOPS, well he is what I should have provided to you weeks ago, I not going to do your investigation for you.

      • RockyMtnMama says:

        I agree that a large part of the problem is that the defense know they are missing stuff. But when they do find out stuff is missing, they need to ask for it. Wait a a few days (say 5 days?), and when it doesn’t show up, file a motion to compel discovery. They need to stop thinking that they will get any cooperation from the State.

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        The tone for this case was set the moment that Judge Nelson allowed the prosecution to “stonewall” discovery by telling the defense to “find out what they didn’t give you, tell me what it is, and I will make them give it to you”. By doing that, she wrote the prosecution a BLANK CHECK to attempt anything they want, with no fear of any repercussions in court. If you ask ME, JUDGE NELSON is the cause of most of the delays, but she is ALSO the one who controls the timeline.

    • John Galt says:

      +1 Pedal to the metal.

  70. partyof0 says:

    I’d demand a meeting with the “CRS”…it would be my clients right…since ANYONE who has a discussion with them and discloses information exchanged (who works for the CRS) CAN be fined or prosecuted….and ask “WTF is going on?”

  71. mamabear says:

    It is very obvious to me that this is a scheduled lynching. They want to railroad Zimmerman and they want to do so with as little trouble as possible. How does one fight such a system determined to railroad a person no matter what.

  72. wrongonred says:

    I am just amazed. This Judge was read the Florida Supreme Court Rules verbatim, which specifically states that the Defense is not required to take leave of the court, yet then tells them that they are going to have to await her determination as to whether or not an affidavit produced by a Witness is sufficient for what they need to know, without the benefit of awareness of the entire body of the evidence, and then tells them, if they want to dispute her unsupported ruling, they can file a motion, which then further adds to the need for delay, which she already denied?

    As a layman, and someone whom I like to think is capable of higher level reasoning, how can anyone presume that to be rational? So, is going to the DCA not ripe until the order limiting the scope of the depo is written and subsequent motion to depose denied?

    • howie says:

      Omara should open an office in the lobby of the 5th DCA appeals court. Jeez how many judges will have to be kicked out?

    • John Galt says:

      “So, is going to the DCA not ripe until the order limiting the scope of the depo is written and subsequent motion to depose denied?”

      Might not be ripe until after a conviction.

    • It’s very telling that the Judge denied the motion for a special discovery judge some months ago and now denies the motion for a continuance. Nelson said a special discovery judge wouldn’t have enough time to get up to speed, but she is the one that is pushing for this case to move full speed ahead while the prosecution willfully violates proper discovery procedures as well as her previous orders.

      • If you liked Nelsons decisions today, imagine how she’s going to cripple the defense at trial. I suspect that Judge Nelson gave the world a glimpse that she’s a devout member of the Florida Political Machine, she’s apparently too concerned with making sure she doesn’t become the minority racists scape goat! You’d better prepare for Judge Nelson to overrule the defense often, yet allow the State free reign within the courtroom. The writing is on the wall, George’s only hope is that the Justices overrule Judge Nelson’s refusal to grant immunity protection. If this farce gets past the immunity hearing, George’s life will be in great jeopardy.

  73. sunnydaze77 says:

    Smdh @ Judge Nelson…………..She can not grasp the simple concept that the defense has not received all the info from the prosecution to proceed with depo’s. The persecution team has dragged their feet releasing and handing over evidence which has delayed MOM/West with their case, how can she not get that MOM explained that to her in baby steps and she still denied the request for more time, that in itself is complete BS. LOL @ Crump and his Attorney, Im hoping on March 5th we hear what we all want to hear….Mr. Crump has been added to the witness list, he needs to be due to his involvement with Wit #8….I am so not happy with todays results.

    • wrongonred says:

      I think this Judge is intentionally obtuse. I think she is playing it off like she is mentally deficient and is unable to follow a sequence of events, and arrive at a logical conclusion, or to apply Occam’s Razor to the facts presented to her. Even my 6 year old would be able to understand the issues here. I cannot believe someone as intellectually deficient as Judge Nelson portends to be, was able to pass the bar exam, or become a Judge. I can only surmise that she is playing dumb. She has to be……

      • jello333 says:

        That’s fine, let her play dumb. The appeals court looks at this, looks at HER, and says “You’re off this case, and not only that, you’re off the bench, period.” Then Nelson is like, “Wait! I’m not really stupid! I was just pretending because I wanted to help the prosecution, and….OOPS!”

      • Angel says:

        “I think she is playing it off like she is mentally deficient and is unable to follow a sequence of events, and arrive at a logical conclusion, or to apply Occam’s Razor to the facts presented to her. Even my 6 year old would be able to understand the issues here”

        I agree. This judge needs to step up her game. She should be able to see that this is not your typical case. Even Stevie Wonder can see that.

    • partyof0 says:

      I can ALREADY tell…this is NOT going to happened….when a LAWYER for another lawyer comes in to court for a deposition for that lawyer….these were ABSOLUTE red flags to that “so called Judge”….yeh….”he’s right….I do NEED to read whats in this affadavit about Mr ….Uh….I mean Lord Crump….”

    • LetJusticePrevail says:

      “She can not grasp the simple concept that the defense has not received all the info from the prosecution to proceed with depo’s”

      I TOTALLY disagree with you! She not only GRASPS that fact, but (through prior rulings) has ENCOURAGED the stalling tactics!

      It is now clear just how the proceedings will continue.

  74. stevie g says:

    is there a video of today’s hearing anywhere? thanks.

  75. maggiemoowho says:

    Sorry, I don’t mean to pick at MOM, but, he needs to stop making TM a victim and start making him the offender. I don’t think he should have given the TM birthday speech. It was a tragedy, yes, but one that could have been avoided if TM didn’t attack GZ that night. George is the victim and this sympathy that MOM has for TM and his family needs to stop. JMHO.

    • rumpole2 says:

      I posted that as soon as MOM opened his mouth.
      He should NOT have been doing that at all. Birthdays are irrelevant in a serious court proceeding…. save it for the dopes posting at JQ.
      And in this case.. the “Birthday” of what MOM should know, and be stressing is the instigator in this case…. a person committing serious assault/attempted murder.. why in heavens name are we pausing to remember his “birthday”? Actually NOT his birthday since he is no longer alive to have birthdays.

    • Angel says:

      “I don’t mean to pick at MOM, but, he needs to stop making TM a victim and start making him the offender. I don’t think he should have given the TM birthday speech.”

      Actually Maggiemoowho, I think that was an excellent strategy on MOM’s part. He knew it was the elephant in the room so with the defense acknowledging it, it, IMO, made it seem like “okay It’s TM”s birthday but lets get on with the issues at hand. ” Next.

      That’s my take away.

  76. xballer52 says:

    She doesn’t see irony and contradictions in her own rulings. If you notice, every ruling she makes requires the defense to go through an extra step, whether it’s taking depositions to obtain the most basic of information from witnesses, obtaining evidence from the State, ruling to postpone a scheduled deposition, etc.

    I have been a participant cases far less complex than this that have been continued on multiple occassions, and ultimately took years to come to trial. It a case of this magnitude and this complexity, and with the amount witnesses, evidence, and travel involved, it is NOT reasonable to deny a motion to continue, with the justification for denial being that council has been aware of the court date and is expected to abide by the trial date previously set forth by the Court.

    O’Mara was smart in getting it on the record that as a consequence of her ruling, the Defense will not have the opportunity for retain expert witnesses. This certainly will be mentioned in future filings to the DCA.

    I am not SHOCKED by the actions of the judge, my honest assesment of her, is that she is in over her head and doesn’t seem to have the mental capacity to understand the motions being presented to her. Her actions have consequences and she doesn’t seem realize it.

    • howie says:

      Sounds like she is channeling Theodoric of York medieval barber. Bleed them!

      • boutis says:

        Wasn’t Theodoric also a Judge occasionally. I seem to recall he specialized in in trying witches. Throw them tied in a sack into a pond. If they floated they were guilty, if they sunk and drowned they were innocent. Debra of York sounds right.

  77. hooson1st says:

    on BDLR

    I cut BDLR a lot of slack for his discovery posture, but he said something today early on that was flat out misleading to the court

    (I am paraphrasing)
    BDLR took a cheap false shot at the SPD stating that they made a decision to drop the case without ever looking at the cellphone contents that could provide a lead (such as W*), that Mr. Crump with the help of TM’s father located the witness.

    In fact it was TM’s father who would not cooperate w/the SPD relying on Crump’s advice, denying them the information they needed, and instead, using Crump as the backstop as the “money hunt” took shape.

    This is despicable on BDLR’s part, and goes beyond the bounds of aggressively pursuing his side of the case.

      • hooson1st says:

        Well, maybe “despicable” is too strong a word, I would like to see prosecutors do their job without without demeaning law enforcement.

        • myopiafree says:

          Hi Hooson – As I stated before – this is a POLITICAL TRIAL generated by BGI. Rules of justice and decency are simply thrown out the window.

        • Sha says:

          hooson1st : It isn’t to strong of a word. You said it right ! There isn’t anything wrong with people fighting for what they believe in ….what is wrong is when you have to lie , cover up and deny things to keep your case going. BDLR isn’t stupid he knows the truth about this case but yet he chooses his pride over trying to send a innocent man to jail .

    • boricuafudd says:

      You bring a good point, I often wondered what would be the exit strategy for the State. This might be an indication of where they would point to, in other to appease the masses. The investigation was flawed by SPD which put the State in the position that they could not win the case.

      Then Crump and Sanford could come with a settlement (payoff) from Bonaparte.

  78. justfactsplz says:

    Words can’t begin to express my feelings right now. It is obvious this judge is in somebody’s pocket. She has been bought.

    • ottawa925 says:

      Thank you. Cause that’s EXACTLY what this is about with Nelson, although I will she was not bought … she was warned then told what consequences will be.

      • thefirstab says:

        “she was not bought … she was warned then told what consequences will be.”

        That would just be another form of payment….. or payback.

    • janc1955 says:

      I just keep thinking of George and his family. How many years will they have to give up while others toy with their lives? As much as most of us care about GZ and what has happened to him, we all have our own lives and the freedom to go about living them. George might as well be in jail for all the freedom he has to pursue his own life. I just feel sick for him.

      Hang in there, George. It’s going to be a long, long road. But I still believe with all my heart you will prevail in the end.

      • justfactsplz says:

        I am totally bumbed out about today’s hearing. I know George is innocent and this is all so frustrating. It is obvious that discovery isn’t going to come easy for the defense. I have been thinking about it all day. The defense faces several obstacles. Funds are a major concern in order to hire experts and investigators so they can obtain their own discovery. I plea with anyone who could donate not only funds but expertise. Volunteers of investigators, phone experts, forensic experts, retired perhaps even. Without the evidence they need the defense cannot do their job and they are running out of time and that scares me. This is a travesty of justice.

      • Sharon says:

        He will not prevail if the fix is in. No one thought it would be here today, and I haven’t seen anything that suggests anything changing in the future.

        Refusing to accept what’s happening in broad daylight doesn’t change what’s happening.

  79. Springstreet says:

    I am not a lawyer, but I believe the proper term for what Judge Nelson just did to MOM is BITCHSLAP … and it’s all his fault. Instead of utilizing her scheduled hearings he presented a whining colored graph … pathetic! Crump will not be deposed. The phone’s chain of custody will stand unchallenged. There will be no public tox report, or GPS map of Trayvon or anyone’s phone, or ping logs, or twitter accounts, or DD identification, etc. etc. Bernie successfully kicked the can down the street. Get ready for the MSM headline: Judge rejects racist’s lawyer’s stall tactics – unarmed teen’s killer to be brought to justice as scheduled. So … maybe next time some people should spend a little less time dumping on the “victim’s” family and more time demanding actual facts be publicly presented. Oh … and good luck with the appeal.

    • mung says:

      There are so many avenues open for appeal it isn’t even funny. The Trayvots will claim victory from this hearing just as before and state how the defense is grasping for straws. What they fail to comprehend is that every time the judge plays these games she opens another door for appeal and in the event that the Traybots do somehow get there way and get a jury dumb enough to convict, the conviction will be overturned in a second. Every bit of evidence that has been tampered with or manufactured will be barred from the second trial and the state will have nothing to recharge with.

    • partyof0 says:

      I’m 99% sure this IS going to trial…..NOTHING is going to be allowed in to impeach any “ebidense”…as proclamated to the defense…ad nauseum…

      • howie says:

        I thinks so too now. The SYG hearing will force the state to put some cards on the table at no risk to the defense. Even if the judge takes a pass.

    • rumpole2 says:

      …..unarmed teen’s killer to be brought to justice as scheduled.

      …unarmed, just turned 17, black teen’s killer brought to justice as scheduled.

    • Sha says:

      Springstreet : She doesn’t have the guts to BITCHSLAP a puppy much less anyone else. Omara and West will get what they need…..even if they have to go through hell to get it. The real victims here are George and TM because both are being used for profit and gain by others.

  80. xballer52 says:

    Isn’t there more matters to be discussed after the recess, or was that it?
    Am I wasting my time staying logged on?

  81. myopiafree says:

    What a NOTHING hearing! When is the next scheduled review? Where is Gutman’s tape? Where is the “Phone dump”? Where is DeeDee? Where do we find out that TM’s phone was “dead” during that last 30 minutes? Is this “Alice in Wonderland” or what?

  82. xballer52 says:

    Are they coming back to address other issues after recess? Or is today’s hearing over?

  83. yankeeintx says:

    Doesn’t the Self-defense Immunity hearing have to be held 45 days prior to the trial date? She knows they won’t be ready, and she pretty much made it clear how she would rule. I think she made it clear that this is going to trial. She also made it clear that George’s constitutional rights don’t matter to her, and knows she just set them up for an appeal. Shameful!

    • mung says:

      I really think she is trying to get it to the immunity hearing so she can rule against George and have the appellant court overturn her. That way it is not on her. I expect to see the appellant court have a split decision.

      • yankeeintx says:

        I think you may be exactly right. Something is going on, and she making it obvious. They should have pulled in a retired judge to handle this, someone who doesn’t have to worry about the politics behind the scenes.

    • tara says:

      It does appear that she’s already got it planned out. To ensure that the BGI hitmen won’t burn her house down she’s siding with the persecution on nearly every issue, tossing a bone to the defense now and then so she won’t be obvious to the casual malinformed observers. She’ll deny immunity, breathe a sigh of relief, and then let the trial play out with the burden of the decision-making resting comfortably on the shoulders of 12 individuals who also don’t want their houses burned down.

  84. ottawa925 says:
    • mung says:

      Not when the lawyer has specific knowledge of how he found the witness.

      • howie says:

        This will get sorted out I think. The murder trial trumps crump’s work product in a civil case privilege I think. Under certain exceptions. If his work on a civil case turns up material evidence in a murder trial, or is evidence in a murder trial. It is confusing. Especially if he is working for the prosecution. It is a real humdinger.

    • boutis says:

      Crump AND W8 are both fact witnesses in the criminal trial. Crump is nobody, nothing in the criminal trial. He doesn’t represent the state and he does not represent Zimmerman. He is not a criminal lawyer for anyone. Crump is the lawyer in the civil actions of the Martins. The Scheme team is unable to differentiate because to them the criminal matter is their civil case. They do not have a civil case if there is no criminal case.

      • mung says:

        I am not a lawyer and don’t pretend to be one, but wouldn’t Crump have to prove why any information he says would have a negative impact on his civil cases? I don’t really see how explaining how he found DeeDee, who was present, if he had coached her in anyway, and why the tape kept stopping, could have any impact on proving his cases.

        • boutis says:

          I am not a lawyer either but I have been an investigator in civil actions. Plaintiffs have to dig out their own witnesses and there is nothing wrong with Crump doing that for a CIVIL case. The problem is that this is a CRIMINAL case and the state is treating him like he is a prosecutor when he is a WITNESS in a CRIMINAL case. His actions have been that of a civil plaintiff. He has no civil case without the criminal case so he has stepped into something that is beyond his control and he is trying to limit his culpability with political pressure.

    • rumpole2 says:

      Crump is not (or was not at the time) Dee Dee’s lawyer.
      As far as this case is concerned… Crump is a private citizen who unwisely interfered with a witness in a Murder case. His link to as a lawyer acting in POTENTIAL civil matters for Tracy and Sabrina has nothing to do with Dee Dee.

    • wrongonred says:

      How can W8 testify to what is essentially hearsay? How could W8 know when the prosecution became aware of her? That is like asking me when my wife became aware I was interested in marrying her. Any statement W8 provides is hearsay as she does not have first hand knowledge, however, Crump would, as his attorney has stated that both he and Mr. Martin found her and raised her to the attention of the persecution.

      • rumpole2 says:

        Quite right!!
        Why can’t Nelson see that? Is she thick? or Corrupt?
        Why the big deal anyway? As MOM said.. he is entitled to KNOW when the Prosecution became aware of witness #8 (and the manner they became aware)….. he has asked Bernie and Bernie wont answer. Why? Why doesn’t Nelson just tell Bernie to answer the question?

  85. ottawa925 says:

    Can they get rid of Nelson? file another Appeal based on her latest antics?

  86. ottawa925 says:

    Remember the Judge for Casey Anthony? I thought he was very fair and didn’t get in the way. I think he would have been a perfect Judge for this case …. and HE’S BLACK !!!! Judge Belvin Perry. He made sense throughout that trial. I don’t think we ever got to see the hearings leading up to the trial … did we? seems so long ago. But I thought he was fair and respectful to everyone, and he didn’t need weeks to read a few pages in Court.

    BTW, is it over for today, or is Nelson coming back on the Affidavit ? She said recess>

  87. HughStone says:

    Judge Nelson has this song on her mind.
    “If Mr. Crump don’t like it, we ain’t gonna have it here”

  88. howie says:

    I missed it. Did she do anything except deny the continuance and protect Crump?

  89. Lulu says:

    Right on cue, the WaPo’s scab-picking Jonathan Capeheart comes out with this to stir the pot:
    The ‘rabid’ hate aimed at Trayvon Martin

    • Justice4All says:

      Please do not provide links to this racist….his stories are not deserving of any additional web traffic.

    • jordan2222 says:

      The series of events outlined by Zimmerman for the police suggests an improbable scenario that even the DNA evidence doesn’t support.

  90. justfactsplz says:

    When the Martin camp decided to railroad George they got masses to sign a petition on line, they got the media involved, they created a false narrative, they held rallies with thousands in attendance. Where is the aggressive support of George? There are no rallies, no one going on the news on his behalf lately. This railroading will continue until the American people stand up and make a stand and say, “stop”. Where are the people holding signs “Justice for George” bombarding the courthouse steps? This perversion of justice has happened over and over in history and will continue to happen. The government fears mob rallies by the BGI. Saddly, they do not even consider mob rallies for those who seek truth and justice.

    • maggiemoowho says:

      As long as there is money to be made of racial issues they will continue. Mob rallies and riots men more money for them. Lying provides a profitable life for these people. TM’s case provides a perfect example of lying for profit.

    • tara says:

      Rallies to rile up the stupid people, passing the wastebaskets around, creating a fairy tale and hiring a PR firm to broadcast it … this is what scammers do. We don’t do that. I don’t know what we can do other than stay on track with our discussions here, assist GZ’s defense team any way possible, support GZ, and don’t give up. Just because we’re not loud doesn’t mean we’re weak.

  91. partyof0 says:

    I am of the opinion that MOM and West need their own Lawyer to talk to Judge Nelson…since she is obviously NOT listening to them….

    • partyof0 says:

      What my clients are trying to say….is, with all the “ebidense” turned over to them so far….they don’t see any that makes their client guilty of anything….and in order to impeach the “ebidense” they need to see “what” this ebidense is…and they are STILL waiting for it….so they can plan a defense for “that” ebidense….which so far is ….well, as my clients have been trying to tell you….

  92. Missed the hearing, but am seeing several Twitter updates from Orlando Sentinel reporters Jeff Weiner and Rene Stutzman regarding the “Crump addidavit.” Does someone have that to post at the Treehouse?

    Rene Stutzman‏@renestutzman

    crump affidavit: I set my recorder next to the phone on speaker-phone and hit “record”. I used the built in mic. #Trayvon, #Zimmerman.

  93. LetJusticePrevail says:

    Well, after watching the hearing, it is PERFECTLY CLEAR what the agenda is:

    1) The “Scheme Team” will be granted a “get out of jail free card” that will totally stymie any attempts of the defense team to discover the truth about Witness 8 ie; how she was actually discovered, and how much her testimony has been influenced by *certain parties* NOT TO MENTION their involvement (through Alicia Adamson) with witness 14, their involvement with witness 18 (through the PI hired by Natalie Jackson), or their involvement with witnesses 5 and 16.

    2) The prosecution will be allowed to stall as long as they want, about whatever the want, and by doing so, totally block any meaningful investigation of witness tampering, evidence tampering (the missing cell phone data), the investigation of leaks within the SPD, or any investigation of improper influence by NOBLE members within the SPD.

    3) Judge Nelson will see to it that the matter WILL go to trial by ignoring legal precedent and the evidence presented to her at the immunity hearing.

    Sorry to be so negative, and so blunt, but today’s rulings, and the obvious willful ignorance exhibited by Judge Nelson while seated on the bench makes it PERFECTLY CLEAR.



    • libby says:

      How did the last three judges get off this case?
      They were found out to be part of the persecution.
      Wont take long.
      Cuz the truth prevails.
      God bless all involved.

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        “How did the last three judges get off this case?”

        Rockseidler recused herself as soon as she was challenged for a “possible” conflict of interest, and Lester was removed for statements that demonstrated bias. (I still believe that he did that INTENTIONALLY and his refusal to remove himself was only window dressing).

        “They were found out to be part of the persecution”

        The ENTIRE judicial system of the State of Fl IS the persecution. There is not a single judge that is immune to the pressures from Tallahassee OR the media, but Debra Nelson is ahead of the previous two by leaps and bounds. SHE is the pawn of the prosecutor, and the Governor who appointed Angela Corey to this case.

        If Mark O’Mara does not file for an appeal of her ruling denying a continuance, HE is not representing his client with due diligence! But even if he does, I am now seriously doubting that the 5th DCA has not already been advised to uphold her ruling!

    • myopiafree says:

      These issues would have been RESOLVED – before they got out-of-hand, if Wolfwitz had been allowed to conduct the GRAND JURY HEARING. Now this mess is spinning wildly out of control.

  94. arkansasmimi says:

    Natalie Jackson‏@NatJackEsq 15 sec ago
    @modarreslaw is working on scanning @attorneycrump’s affidavit that Attorney Blackwell filed today for your enjoyment. #comingsoon

  95. TandCrumpettes says:

    Took my daughter on a short ride to the bank after the hearing. She’s three (yeah, I keep repeating that). I’ve not discussed the case with her (why would I?), nor did I give her any background in the car. I just drove quietly, muttering to myself….

    “How could they do this….why are they doing this…..how could they……”

    Suddenly, my daughter spoke up:

    “Mama, don’t be sad. They are cheating.”

    I don’t know what was really on her mind that made her say that….but it couldn’t have been more appropriate.

    • Alexandra M. says:

      You are blessed with a very smart and intuitive daughter! :). She got it right.

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        I got a very stern lecture from MY daughter for discussing the case with my grandson. I explained that I was trying to give him a life lesson about how the newspeople on TV are presenting an OPINION that “has to be taken with a grain of salt”, and to keep his eyes focused on facts and not be led by others. My daughter said that she appreciated what I was trying to teach him, but that I should not have exposed him to the details of a murder trial.

  96. arkansasmimi says:

    Jeff Weiner‏@JeffWeinerOS 6 min ago
    PDF: @AttorneyCrump’s affidavit & court orders from today’s #GeorgeZimmerman hearing. #TrayvonMartin http://twitdoc.com/1S6M

    • arkansasmimi says:

      READ THE AFFIDAVIT!!!!!!This cracks me up!

    • John Galt says:

      Crump denies any edits of DD recording, other than placing DD on hold.

      • eastern2western says:

        missing 12 minutes just naturally happened? sure compadre.

        • rumpole2 says:

          What happened to the motion to Subpoena Matt Guttman’s tape(s)
          It might be handy to have a Crump affidavit…. to compare/contrast with reality and as ebidents against him.

          • AghastInFL says:

            Jeralyn Merritt @ talkLeft says:

            It is my understanding that ABC asked to continue the supboena matter because Guttman is in Brazil and was unavailable to assist in preparing a response for today’s hearing.

      • jello333 says:

        Good. Compare to Gutman’s tape = perjury for Benny

        • LetJusticePrevail says:

          Yeah, if we ever GET Gutman’s recording. You can rest assured that ABC will fight to delay the release of that recording until AFTER the SCHEDULE NAZI forces this persecution past the point where witness 8 is allowed to present her testimony.

        • John Galt says:

          I think their might be a problem in that Crump, Tracy and Sybrina have now all denied discussing with W8 the substance of W8′s knowledge about her phone call with Trayvon prior to the Crump recording of her statement. So we are supposed to believe that they invited Gutman to listen and record W8, when none of them knew what W8 would say?

          • boricuafudd says:

            John stop copying my posts! LOL

          • tara says:

            It’s especially unbelievable in the case of Sybrina or Tracy. Come on, if it were your son, wouldn’t you ask the girl “WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU????”.

            What’s up with the meeting Sybrina had with DeeDee? Sybrina told BDLR that she talked to DeeDee and DeeDee’s mother “after learning” that DeeDee was the last person to speak with Trademark, so on or after the evening of Mar 18 according to the fairy tale, and despite the fact that Ronquavis already leaked to Nancy Grace that DeeDee was at Trademark’s funeral. But I digress. Sybrina told BDLR that DeeDee arrive with some other “unknown black female”, and Sybrina and DeeDee went outside to talk. I always found that funny, it’s Sybrina’s home but they have to go outside to talk? Of course they never discussed what Trademark said to DeeDee that night. :) And some time later Sybrina took DeeDee home. When was this meeting? Before or after Crump’s interview with DeeDee? We do know it occurred before Apr 2, the date BDLR talked to Sybrina about it, which is the same day BDLR interviewed DeeDee. What is most irksome is BDLR noted that Sybrina met with DeeDee “sometime in March 2012″. Nice bit of investigative work, assh*le. You make the Florida taxpayers proud.

    • boricuafudd says:

      Sure I coached her before, during and after. The recording quality may be bad but that is because I’m a dummy and did not know how to work my own recorder. Of course, anything said before or after the recording I can’t recall. Besides we could not let this go to a secret Grand Jury, that I could not control. Finally, if the DD that is depose is different to the one I talk to, is not my fault all I did was talk on the phone, I never saw her.

  97. Reptile says:

    Crump and DD plotting and scheming behind the scenes. Nelson has her own agenda and its not a fair trial.

    • rumpole2 says:

      When they do depose Crump it may be better if Crump is allowed to answer by writing things down? I assume he can write better that he speaks?

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        My money says that Nelson will now rule that a deposition of Crump is unnecessary, and will disallow it. I doubt that she even bothers to read his affidavit or, at best, only reads enough to make some small references to it and thereby make her ruling seem justified. Mark O’Mara will never have the opportunity to depose Ben Crump!

        • mung says:

          She will rule against it, but the appeals court won’t.

          • MJW says:

            Discovery rulings are almost never appealable until the trial is completed. Then they’re subject to “harmless error” analysis. Basically, the trial judge was wrong, but no harm, no foul.

        • John Galt says:

          This is an opportunity for the defense to lay some cards on the table in a motion to depose Crump.

        • rumpole2 says:

          A very good chance you are correct, but…..
          From what West said in court (IANAFLL), the defence does have the right to depose anybody who might have pertinent information. This current Depo of Crumpo was a bit of a special deal.. decided on the fly… by Nelson.. (she wont let that happen again). So…… she may well accept a crapadavid from Crump to settle this matter and cancel this Depo.
          I assume that if West wants to request a Depo for his own sake.. he has to show something like “probable cause” that Crump has pertinent info. Surely in Florida where PCA’s are presented for Murder 2 on little to no evidence, it should not be too hard to show need for a Depo of Crump?
          Or am I just dreaming…. and all the Florida law only works for certain people :D

  98. LetJusticePrevail says:

    Have not verified this yet, but ran across a post elsewhere that said the document filed by Crump’s attorney is available:

    Twenty-nine page motion filed by Mr Blackwell, attorney for Mr Crump, who represents Tracy and Sybrina, available to read through Jeff Weiner, TwitDoc.

  99. art tart says:

    This hearing was pretty freaking outrageous, how can MOM/West be ready for the SYG Hearing in April when they can’t get ALL the information they need in order to defend GZ?

    Judge Perry bent over backwards in KC’s case always reminding the Prosecution “KC was entitled as she was the one on trial,” rarely was the defense denied anything they ask for as it was stated many times, Judge P had only been appealed once, apparently, Judge N apparently doesn’t care. I can’t believe she doesn’t think there will be appeals.

    • howie says:

      Looks not as bad as I thought. A lot was granted that the defense needs. The rest can be dug out.

      • art tart says:

        howie – your comment is encouraging. I am outraged that Crump/Handler’s will remain scamming the public, lying, continuing the media blitz, and I don’t know how easy it is going to be for the defense to get the truthful information they need concerning DD.

        • howie says:

          They are gonna have to pull teeth. But at least now they have Crump on paper. Also several motions that are important were granted. Especially the one re the CRS. Lot’s to work with. There is still four months to trial and the defense is not stopped from asking for more time again.

          • John Galt says:

            “But at least now they have Crump on paper.”

            Crump has already contradicted himself, no? Didn’t he say that the recorded interview was the first and only time he talked to W8? Now in the affidavit, there is a description of a prior call.

          • justfactsplz says:

            The defense already has a lot of the goods on DeeDee. They are merely putting the dots together.

        • hooson1st says:

          To understand Crump, understand what his focus is. His focus is to preserve, at all costs, a stratagem to get into civil court on this case, regardless of what happens in the criminal case, if at all possible.

          • LetJusticePrevail says:

            Absolutely correct. He does not give two hoots about the outcome of any trial. All he wants is for the Judge to rule against a Motion for Immunity. He and the prosecution are using the SCHEDULE NAZI’s timeline to force the defense into an immunity hearing with as few facts as possible, to give the Judge leeway to rule that the defense does not have a “preponderance of evidence”.

            Mark O’Mara clearly stated that he did NOT agree to a June hearing, and also stated in open court that their MAY have been discovery violations by the prosecution. While this may be enough to force a Richardson hearing, or *possible* reversal on appeal of a ruling against immunity, I wouldn’t count on it.

            Mark had best “saddle up” and get his expert witnesses lined up and ready to go before the 3/26 deadline for the final witness lists, and be prepared to put forth a VIGOROUS ARGUMENT for IMMUNITY. Judge Nelson has made it very clear that she has no intentions of giving the defense ONE INCH of leeway in their adherence the timeline she set forth in October.

            If Mark needs to add other attorneys to his legal team to get this done, he needs to round them up and put them to work TODAY. Final witness lists are due in 49 days!

      • boricuafudd says:

        Howie, I agree. What I found interesting is that Crump found an out in case DD is found to be someone else, I spoke to a phone as such any representation I made about her might be erroneous.

        • howie says:

          I can’t wait til they go to work on the CRS to find out what they were up to. It will be interesting and help figger out the origins of the problem. They won some and lost some. The ones they lost can be revisited. Not as bad as it appears on the surface I don’t think.

  100. Reptile says:

    Stay strong George.
    Don’t be intimidated by this.

  101. LetJusticePrevail says:

    Well, after having read Mr Crump’s affidavit, I can see there are no revelations there. Just a point by point recap of what he has already claimed, and what we all knew he would say. Basically, “That’s his story, and he’s sticking to it”. Frankly, I don’t see THIS judge allowing a deposition of Ben Crump. Anyone disagree with my appraisal of Crump’s statement, or what Judge Nelson will rule in regards to him being deposed by the defense?

    • howie says:

      Paragraph 14. Clearly false according to the police accounts.

    • hooson1st says:


      I think that MOM/West, would want more detail on how DeeDee was uncovered and exactly when.

      Note in Crump’s affidavit, he is careful to point how careful and limited his questions to her were.

      He did not ask her (nor did BDLR later) what she might have learned or been exposed to as to alleged “facts” of the case via the (sensational) TV news coverage and the social media links.

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        “I think that MOM/West, would want more detail on how DeeDee was uncovered and exactly when”

        Of COURSE they do, just like the rest of us! But here’s the problem: Without coming right out and stating their suspicions, they have no way to pressure Judge Nelson to
        rule that a deposition is necessary. It seems OBVIOUS that she knows *EXACTLY* what they suspect, but wants to force them to accuse another “officer of the court” of wrongdoing, something she already knows they have no proof of! Would you, if you were in Mark’s shoes, open yourself up to the legal repercussions of making such an accusation without absolute proof that it occurred? But, short of doing JUST THAT, they are forced to let Judge Nelson sit there, with that vapid look on her face, and calmly rule that there seems to be no reason to depose Ben Crump.

        “Note in Crump’s affidavit, he is careful to point how careful and limited his questions to her were”

        No, that point did not escape me. He has been *specific* to point out that he was *specifically vague* (now THERE’S an oxymoron if I ever made one) and has cleverly built himself an alibi should there be any revelations about her statement, or if she is somehow impeached while on the witness stand.

        “He did not ask her (nor did BDLR later) what she might have learned or been exposed to as to alleged “facts” of the case via the (sensational) TV news coverage and the social media links”

        And, again, by doing so, both Crump and BDLR have further insulated themselves from any potential accusations of wrongdoing. A simple case of ignoring the obvious circumstances of the “real world.” They KNOW she wasn’t in an insulated cocoon, and allowed themselves a further alibi through their “willfull ignorance.” It is all about PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.

        But, knowing all of this and proving it in court, to the degree that will COMPEL Judge Nelson to allow a deposition of Ben Crump, are two entirely different matters. I don’t know how the “virtual cake” thing works, but I would be willing to bet a baker’s dozen of them to a single glazed donut that Crump is never deposed by the defense team as a result of any ruling by Judge Nelson.

        Moving right along, I also wanted to mention that Ben Crump managed to slip something ELSE into his *crapadavit*: He specifically mentions that Witness 8 was ill and did not attend the WAKE, but MAKES NO MENTION OF THE FUNERAL. This is NOT the first time he has done this, and while listening to the recording of BDLR’s interview of witness 8 on 4/2, I see that BDLR glossed over that subject, leaving himself (and by extension Crump) deniability about whether or not DeeDee was at the actual funeral. BDLR did not clarify the point of whether she was answering that she had missed BOTH the wake and funeral, or if she was only saying that she missed the wake. At this point, any statement made by the cousin, whatEVER his name is, while not under oath, will not amount to a hill of beans, and is one that I am sure they have already prepared a rebuttal to. It will probably turn out that the cousin will say he was mistaken, and that the girl he talked to was NOT witness 8. I mean seriously, does anybody really think that a member of THAT family will ever have the moral integrity to stand up in public and say something that will threaten their Dream Scheme?

  102. eastern2western says:

    Judging from the crump affidavit, dd sounds like some thing from pure desperation. basically, after told that zimmerman was defending him self, the martins suddenly discovered the great dd from a phone record and they were the first ones spoken to this critical witness while no body was there as a neutral witness. Just from their endless media interviews where they declared that they would not rest until zimmerman is convicted of murderring trayvon, this dd has fabrication writting all over it. lets see what happens next month.

    • hooson1st says:

      I see no desperation, just Crump adhering to his game plan.

      • howie says:

        It is on paper…and filed in a court…:)

      • Unicron says:

        He meant the original appearance of Deedee was an act of desparation, and possibly an act of outright fabrication. I, too, think this is possible. Crump has even said “nothing was happening! we had to do something!” (paraphrased) re: Deedee. The idea is, they weren’t getting the guy who shot their son (client’s son) charged with anything, it was headed toward a grand jury that was probably going to decide not to file charges as Norm Wolfinger decided… and they fabricated this “ear witness” Deedee, waiting til GZ’s account (rough form) was in the media so they could base it off his, adding just enough to make it seem like charging might be appropriate.

        I’m not sure I believe the theory that she is a fabricated witness, but there is definitely a lot about her, how she came to be involved in this case, who she would and would not talk to and when (avoiding cops) and the deal with her being a minor or not… and most importantly, the fact that she never made any effort to contact anyone the night she supposedly heard this… these things do make one wonder.

        • DeeDee stated herself in that interview that her cellphone wasn’t working properly. So how did she hear the ‘grass’ but she didn’t hear screams for help? She was 286 miles away on a cellphone in inclement weather. She also states that Trayvon ‘put his Hoodie on’ how did she know? Did she see him do that? What about the 711 video that shows he had it on the whole time? Let’s talk about those khaki ‘tan’ pants he was wearing and they found him at the scene in stonewashed blue jeans. Let’s see this DeeDee in person and hear what she has to say about NOT calling 911 or Trayvon’s parents right away if she thought he was in danger. LIES

  103. xballer52 says:

    Let me get this straight; according to the Affidavite, Mr. Crump would like us to believe that the parents of Witness #8 (Dee Dee) were reluctant to allow their daughter to be interviewed in person by Crump, but were OK with their daughter conducting an interview telephonically with two members of the media present? OK……SUUUURE.

    The way the Affidavite is written, it leads one to belive that on March 19, Crump spontaneously contacts witness #8, and after a brief preliminary interview, the “formal” interview commences. Really? So they would like one to believe that there was NO interaction with Crump , any associate of Crump, or any representative of the Martin family prior to March 19. Please read the section entititled “Telephonic Recording and Interview of Witness #8, and let me know if it makes any sense. Specifically sections H, I, J.

    In Section I, Crump indicates that he did not want to know any of the substance regarding the conversation between DeeDee and Trayvon on the 26th. Again, he would like you to believe that he arranged for an interview with DeeDee and for the media to be present during said interview, but had NO IDEA what DeeDee was going to say.

    This entire Affidavit is a bunch of bologna, and further confirmes in my mind that either DeeDee herself is a fabrication, or the contents of her conversation with Trayvon is a fabrication.

    • boricuafudd says:

      I had a thought, is been nagging me I can’t prove it yet. We have not seen any confirmation that a conversation between TM and DD took place at the time indicated. What if what DD is describing is an incident prior to the encounter with GZ. We have a long period of time between the time TM left the 7-Eleven and the time GZ reported seeing him, what if what DD described happened earlier. I have seen nothing to corroborate the times.

    • hooson1st says:

      There is still a lot that is not known. Perhaps Tracy called W8 first, and related the substance of her knowledge to Crump, who then could question her without having to get the requisite knowledge out of her, since Gutman was present.

      And didn’t Gutman claim to have multiple contacts w/W8?

      • John Galt says:

        “Perhaps Tracy called W8 first, and related the substance of her knowledge to Crump”

        And then lied to O’Steen and BDLR on April 2 about having not spoken with W8 about the substance of her knowledge?

        “Martin advised that [W8] didn’t go into any details of the phone call. Martin told [W8] that his attorney would contact her.”

    • John Galt says:

      “In Section I, Crump indicates that he did not want to know any of the substance regarding the conversation between DeeDee and Trayvon on the 26th.”

      It occurs to me that the alleged contents of the prep call might have been altered and expanded / detailed to comport with the duration of the call evidenced by a phone record. Very curious that Crump, Sybrina and Tracy unanimously state that they never talked with Dee Dee about the substance of her testimony prior to the Crump recording, yet nonetheless had Gutman and assistant on hand for the recording.

      • hooson1st says:

        I have learned that in these types of affidavits, it is often fruitful to look in the direction of what the affiant does not say, as opposed to plumbing in the direction of what the affiant swears to.

  104. rumpole2 says:

    State v. Zimmerman: Pre-Trial Hearing (FULL) – Feb 5, 2013

    • eastern2western says:

      thank god this is not the trent sawyer version.

      • rumpole2 says:

        Trent DID produce a version.. and as always it was up and running soon after the hearing ended.
        I started watching pt1 and he was not only commentating….. but he interrupted what was on the screen with comment page page as he typed an inane comment… that and the loud commentary made his efforts a complete waste of his time. I did not bother watching more than a minute or two and would certainly not have posted a link anywhere.

    • Omar says:

      Man…Bernie needs to lay off of the “Just for Men” mustache color. OR, at the very least, he should comb it through his entire mustache. GAH!

      Sorry….I couldn’t help myself.

  105. waltherppk says:

    There are legal principles which are relevant and applicable to remedying time delays caused by any failure to promptly disclose in discovery the information being sought or the information which there exists a duty to disclose. Delay of process, Contempt of Court, Doctrine of Equitable Tolling are things involved particularly where the delays have prejudicial effect upon preparation of the defense case. If the state had a “strong case” like they have falsely represented that they do when seeking excessive bond early in the case, then all the discoverable information in the states custody control or possession would have been promptly and completely supplied very early in the proceedings, and the state would be chomping at the bit to complete discovery and get through pretrial hearings and go to trial as soon as possible, before the case becomes stale as an investigation and events in the investigation become a distant memory in the minds of witnesses. The very FACT that discovery has been such a long and dragged out and delayed piecemeal process having missing information and obstructions and delays speaks volumes to the fact the state has a weak case or no case at all. The supervising and babysitting of discovery by a judge is NOT the way discovery is supposed to happen, because all the lawyers should be able to manage discovery quickly and efficiently IF discovery is being conducted in good faith it should not take months and months of jumping through hoops with court orders to secure subpoena compliance and production compliance for documents and depositions and the certifications as evidence for all discoverable information. “Missing” forensic report data like the GPS location data for the phones, and the antics regarding Witness 8 audio recordings for statements made to Crump or Gutman or BDLR are nonsense that should have been resolved months ago and would have been completed except for deliberate discovery delay by the state or by cohorts of the state in obstructing discovery in order to hinder defense preparation to which George Zimmerman has a constitutional right AND is supposed to be provided by due process of law. Seeking a continuance based upon good grounds that discovery has been delayed and obstructed was an entirely valid motion, and the judge may have stepped in it by denying a continuance since the discovery delays are occurring in a discovery which the Court itself is supervising in order to alleviate delays and omissions as are occurring anyway. Failing to grant a continuance was a bad ruling which is appealable given the circumstances. The discovery delays are prejudicial against defense preparation for the immunity hearing which appears to be a clear indication of bias by the Court enabling the very discovery delays to continue as would interfere with defense preparation for the immunity hearing and result in grudging compliance with Discovery only in the eleventh hour before trial, instead of completing discovery well in advance of the immunity hearing AND well in advance of trial like is supposed to be done.

    Again, IF the state ever had such a strong case as it has falsely claimed, ALL discoverable information would have been “cards on the table” a long time ago, and this dog and pony show, this goat rodeo of “Delayed and Obstructed and Incomplete Discovery” would NOT be occurring now.

    • howie says:

      I bet in the end it is continued. Just not right now. There is four months of back and forth to go.

      • waltherppk says:

        The GPS data for the phones and the ping logs for February 26, 2012 are key forensic evidence.which really should have been available with and prior to the time of the probable cause affidavit. That evidence still being missing is no trivial issue. And it is an issue which dovetails with all the mystery about Witness 8. The phone forensic discovery which is still being sought is what should have been a priority disclosure in the initial discovery. So it is highly suspicious that what should have obviously been the first Discovery provided remains undisclosed while the hour is getting late towards an immunity hearing. All the reported technical “difficulty” about providing such forensic evidence discovery is not believable, when there are forensics experts in Florida who could have supplied the information including the ping logs within a few days or even less in the near time frame of the shooting. The phone data particularly is not rocket science needing the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena or silicon valley to be involved.

        • myopiafree says:

          Hi Walther – For me +1,000. Yes you have it, EXACTLY. They want to bury all data that 1) DeeDee was coached and lying 2) The phone was on “stand by” for the last 20 minutes. 3) The bombshell is that Crump is allowed to lie, lie, lie and hide everything with the complicity of the Judge. I have no doubt but that Cell phone was DEAD, as is the case against George Zimmerman. This trial is identical to the NiFong farce.

      • waltherppk says:

        Yeah it may be that a continuance does get granted later if the discovery delays are continued. The forensic experts don’t need much time generally once they have access to the information to which their expert analysis is applied. For example the analysis of the phone data may only take a few minutes for an expert, once they have access to the data.

      • woohoowee says:

        “I bet in the end it is continued. Just not right now.”

        If this happens then the opinion I now hold regarding Florida elected officials interfering with discovery, through the Judge, will be proven incorrect. Hoping you are right :-)

        What I cannot grasp is why Judge Nelson appears to be ignoring what seems to be the prosecutions intentional withholding of discoverable evidence, delays, etc.

  106. raiikun says:

    Oops, posted this in the wrong thread first.

    Only had a chance for a very quick read through the Crump affidavit, but as far as I can tell, Crump makes no mention in it of what he told HLN, about Tracy Martin finding her on the phone bill, calling her, arranging an interview with law enforcement, W8′s parents canceling it, and rescheduling the interview with the media instead.

    Trying to find the other Crump segment with HLN where he talks about it. Was any of that in the affidavit that I missed? Are there any otherof Crump’s media statements that imply that they found W8 prior to 3/18?

    • boricuafudd says:

      We are supposed to believe that Crump the lawyer for the family, arranged to have a reporter present while he interviewed a possible witness, that could conceivably derail his whole case, without knowing what she was going to testify to. I buy that for a penny.

  107. ottawa925 says:

    I’m not reading through Crump’s mess … not in the mood … did he say who was present at the interview?

  108. nettles18 says:

    What would have happened today if Judge Nelson was consistent in her admin. ruling that she won’t consider things filed within 48 hours of the hearing? The Lawyer for Crump delivered that affidavit to the court and advised her Crump would not be at his scheduled deposition today. Could she have ordered Crump jailed until he complied with her order to be deposed?

  109. John Galt says:

    @ 43:10

    So, after prior communications with MOM and receiving a notice for Crump’s deposition, “officer of court and senior member of the bar” Blackman waltzes in and orally (Nelson said “ore tenus”) requests a protective order, which Nelson begins to grant from the bench, without seeing any written filing regarding the matter, and without even hearing from the defense.

    Be very afraid.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      …which Nelson begins to grant from the bench, without seeing any written filing regarding the matter, and without even hearing from the defense.

      Be very afraid.

      Wasn’t Lester forced to recuse himself, for less-serious prejudice than this?

      I think the tack taken by the defense from here forward will tell us what they’ll be trying to accomplish: a Richardson hearing, a Nelson recusal, immunity hearing (and potential appeal), or trial conviction (and subsequent appeal).

      Nelson’s current rulings may not be appealable until after trial, but documented evidence that those rulings are clearly biased against the defense could easily compel the 5th DCA to tell her to recuse.

      • LetJusticePrevail says:

        “Nelson’s current rulings may not be appealable until after trial, but documented evidence that those rulings are clearly biased against the defense could easily compel the 5th DCA to tell her to recuse”

        Agreed, but I am not so certain that the 5th DCA will order her to recuse. She is ALREADY the third judge and accusations of “Judge Shopping” have already been circulated. The DCA might find themselves accused of supporting a shopping expedition, and feel compelled to rule against another petition for a writ of prohibition. If it goes that route, I smell the involvement of the FL Supreme Court.

    • partyof0 says:

      I find it odd…Blackman is addressed by Judge Nelson right as he stands up and IS addressed by Judge Nelson as Mr Blackman….both have never met…never been to her court he retorts….but you’d think they had been sweethearts at one time….basic 3rd to 5th grade level courtroom proceedings…well I would say I felt like I was watching a Play in which the starring roles were played by at best maybe 4th graders….I know they’re above K thru 2 though…but amazing how much attention she is going to give this “last minute” affadavit from Crup’s Lawyer…whew!!!!

    • howie says:

      I don’t understand. She is the one who ordered it herself. On a specific matter. Crump is filing an affidavit purported to address the matter she wanted. His depo was going to be limited to that matter anyway I think. I don’t think she will order that other depo of matters unrelated to what she wanted to know are precluded.

      • John Galt says:

        But West pointed out that the defense can depose Crump per 3.220 (h) (A), regardless of the intended scope of Nelson’s prior designation of Crump as a witness under 90.615. At that point, it becomes the burden of the party seeking the protective order (Crump – Blackman) to demonstrate good cause as to why the deposition should not be taken. The scope of a 3.220(h)(A) deposition is any subject matter reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. I don’t know how it goes in Florida, but lawyers are frequently deposed in other jurisdictions. Objections as to attorney-client privilege and attorney-work product doctrine are raised on a question by question basis. The lawyer must respond to questions seeking non-privileged information. If the party deposing the lawyer doesn’t agree with the objections, they have a transcript prepared and file a motion to compel answers to specific questions. I don’t see the fact that Crump has voluntarily inserted himself into a conflict situation as good cause to block his deposition.

        • howie says:

          Right. But it will happen in the defense deposition. This one was made by the judge herself to get the answer to a certain question. She still has not ruled I don’t think. She is going to check it t see if it satisfies what she wanted. Not what the defense wants. I think.

        • jello333 says:

          You know why I’m not terribly concerned by any of the games the prosecution has played with discovery, and the ridiculous rulings by Nelson? Because, unless I missed a major news flash, the Constitution is still the “law of the land” in this country. And one of the bedrocks is that a defendant in a criminal case has a right to any and all evidence that may help him in his defense.

          Let’s say a defense lawyer declares, “There are specific witnesses and evidence that I need to interview and research before I’m ready to go to trial. But the prosecution has, so far, prevented us from doing so. So even though a trial date has been set for the near future, there is no way we will be ready by that time. If we go to trial on that scheduled date, we will be doing so without yet having access to all the information my client needs to defend himself. And THAT will be a gross violation of his Constitutional rights.”

          How can a judge just say, “Too bad, we’re going to trial anyway” ? If he/she DOES say something like that, then what would an appeals court — which, by the way, is largely set up SPECIFICALLY to deal with Constitutional issues — do about it? Seems to me a major slap-down of the trial judge (and prosecution) would be in order.

          So if, at some point, MOM (or West) stands up in front of Nelson and says, “We will NOT be ready by that date, and we have no intention of allowing my client to go to trial before we ARE ready”… THEN what happens? Actually, I don’t believe that’s how it will go down. I believe they’ll take their complaints to the appeals court before then.

          • kathyca says:

            totally agree. This is a serious charge and there is already error all over the place. If it wasn’t Florida and this particular case, I’d be inclined to think that the Judge was prepared to grant immunity and knows already that there is no need for all the trial prep — plus wanting to save Crump/Corey/BDLR’s backsides in the process.

            And, if that’s not the case, I agree with Howie that she will grant a continuance at a later time. She almost HAS to and if she doesn’t, she will be reversed.

            I swear, if I ever ran into Crump or Natalie Jackson in court or a bar function, I would be hard pressed not to spit on them. They literally make me ill. It would not be pretty! #completedisgracetotheprofession

            • jello333 says:

              Thanks, that means a lot to me, coming from you. Oh, and I’ll hand a “totally agree” right back at ya. ;) And that includes the last part… NO DOUBT. A very good chance I’d wind up in jail if I saw either of those scumbags in person.

    • partyof0 says:

      I just find it astonishing how MUCH she is trying to protect a man “Crump” who isn’t EVEN on trial….protecting this individual from just a deposition….much more than she is giving a man who IS on trial for his life….

      • John McLachlan says:

        Perhaps Crump could implicate others, more powerful and more widely known, if he were ever to be facing any criminal or even civil charges, in his own right.

        Such parties may have concerns that even if he were willing to take a fall for the team, for which he would probably be well compensated, he could inadvertantly reveal information which was not intended to be made public, when under cross-examination.

        Perhaps the judge wishes to prevent the opportunity for such possible embarassment to ever occur.

  110. howie says:

    I don’t think this is bad at all. What she is talking about in the Crump deposition relates to the extent the she herself ordered. He was not a state or defense witness. He can still be included as a witness. Another deposition can be filed by the defense themselves. I also think a further continuance can still be granted. BDLR seemed open to a couple months. She granted some important subpoena’s the defense needs.

  111. auscitizenmom says:

    I may have misunderstood, but I thought one of the things Crump’s lawyer was requesting was that the court accept his statements in that 15 page document in liew of being deposed by MOM. I had the feeling that he really doesn’t want to be questioned and have to give answers on the fly. Too many chances to make a misstatement when you are lying.

    • mung says:

      That is exactly what he was saying.

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Wow, you mean I got it right?

        • LetJusticePrevail says:

          That was my interpretation, too. Crump wants to retain control of what questions he has to answer because he does NOT want to be cornered into answering specific questions. It goes without saying (but I will say it anyway) HE IS HIDING SOMETHING THAT WILL BLOW THE PROSECUTION’S STAR WITNESS RIGHT OUT OF THE WITNESS STAND.

          • howie says:

            He will try to claim it is part of his work product on the civil case and privileged. I wonder how the defense will address that?

            • woohoowee says:

              “He will try to claim it is part of his work product on the civil case and privileged. I wonder how the defense will address that?”

              First, MOM has to find out when/how the State was made aware of W8. BDLR stalling again and the Judge thinks it’s perfectly fine for MOM to get that info from W8!?

              • howie says:

                It was not part of a police investigation. The state does not want to give it up. Hmmm. Very Fishy. Besides. How would Wit. 8 even know? It will have to be another motion.

                • mung says:

                  The way I see it is, they ask her when she was first contacted and when she first talked to someone besides Crump. Then they go back to the state and say, OK when did you first become aware of her. The state will balk and so they will have to file an emergency motion.

            • John Galt says:

              Ideally, with a prima facie showing of the crime-fraud exception, piercing all privileges.

            • kathyca says:

              waiver…big time…when you take your witness to Matt Gutman?

    • howie says:

      He is trying to answer her questions in the matter w/o having to be deposed. If she accepts the affidavit so be it. Omara can till depose him on other matters I think. I think his depo would have been limited anyway by what the judge wanted him to answer. nothing else. He is her witness at this point.

    • John Galt says:

      Maybe he can request that Blackman answer questions for him at his deposition, after consultation, kind of a team deposition.

      • boricuafudd says:

        That was my thought, too.

      • nettles18 says:

        I do believe Mr. Blackwell contradicted himself. He had been in Tallahassee from Wednesday to Friday of (50:00 mark) and then told the Judge he couldn’t file the affidavit sooner because he just saw Crump yesterday b/c Crump lives in Tallahassee. (50.43 mark) There was no reason this couldn’t have been filed inside the 48 hour window the Judge order the parties to adhere to.

        • ed greene says:

          If I remember correctly if the second bail hearing when Robert Zimmerman testified that it was his son that screamed for help . BDLR stated that both Tracy and Sybrina identified the voice screaming for help as Trayvon. BDLR at that time knew that Tracy said that was not Trayvon’s voice. BDLR lied to the court. Since he lied once how many other times has a lied to court. That is ground for being disbarred. If someone get link to that hearing and check to see what BDLR said about Tracy saying voice belonging to Trayvon, when he said as Serino stated and another witness that it was not. This might be grounds for dismissal. Prosecutor Lying to court.

        • selfdefenseadvocate says:

          nettles, I believe Blackwell said he couldn’t file the affidavit because it was still being typed last night. I remember 9 O’Clock PM being mentioned, but don’t recall if typing was still in progress at that time or if was being finished at that time. Anyway you slice it, the way it was handled was not fair to the defense. It is unbelievable that the court date for the defendant to present his self defense case to the court is a little over two months away! They won’t even have time to finish taking depos finished by then! Definitely no time to get experts (like O’Mara tried to tell the judge today). Wanna bet he files a new motion to get the court date changed for the SYG/self defense hearing? If denied, this is definitely this is where I see grounds for appeal. What do you think?

          • selfdefenseadvocate says:

            :oops: (sure wish we had an edit button! I saw that repeat just as I hit the button to send forever into cyberspace). :oops:

    • rumpole2 says:

      If he is talking or writing he is lying.
      But when its writing stuff he has the benefit of “Crap-check” installed on his computer.

  112. diwataman says:

    O’Mara: “I think, I hope you’re getting the flavor of at least my side of the frustrations that we’re having with discovery.”
    Judge: “I don’t see any of your issues as insurmountable”

    I guess that settles any question of that regarding this judge.


    Judge: “On Oct 26th this court when we in session asked the parties when they would be ready for trial and the response was June 2013…”
    O’Mara: When you asked me in October when the case I thought it be ready, I told you I could not tell you, that I would not have that information available to me until we’re into discovery…I did not say that this case be ready in June. I specifically told you it was well too early for a case of this magnitude for me to give you that information.”

    2:18:18 Oct 26th hearing
    Judge: “Okay so what we have, we have a trial date of June 10th…”
    O’Mara: “That sounds good.”

    Good luck with that one Mark.

    • waltherppk says:

      Doh …a foot in mouth moment.

    • rumpole2 says:

      On the off chance that I pass an e-bakery say… late April… is there any particular type of cake you prefer?

    • John Galt says:

      @ 2:16:40 MOM states that he needs to have all the discovery done before the immunity hearing. Obviously, if the State stonewalls discovery, it can’t be completed by the defense.

    • nettles18 says:

      This isn’t the hearing the agreed to June 10th. I think that was the one before this hearing. In this hearing the worked backwards from the already decided June 10th date and scheduled everything else.

      I do recall Mr. O’Mara having some concerns committing to a date this far out with the trouble he was experiencing with discovery matters.

    • LetJusticePrevail says:

      I see your point in regards to Mark’s “That sounds good” statement, but want to also point out his comments prior to that point, when discussing the deadlines for other motions, and their juxtapositions to a trial date: (start at 2:15:30)

      Judge Nelson: I’d like to get some idea about what you think you’re going to need to complete your discovery, as far as a timetable is concerned. Sometimes we work backwards. We have a June 10th trial date. Any motions could be filed and heard 30 days prior to the trial. Does that seem reasonable to both sides?

      BDLR: From the state’s perspective, I guess this depends on what type of motion we’re talking about. If we’re talking about some type of self defense motion I would suggest maybe prior to that, maybe in April, maybe, the first part of April. That will give us a buffer between the trial date.

      Judge Nelson: (To O’Mara) Do you have a comment about that?

      MO’M: “Yes. (laughing) How could I not? (BDLR chortles in background) I like the idea of having a work back from the trial schedule, so 30 days before a trial, fine. A self defense immunity hearing, say, 45 days before. Here’s my only concern is that, my position is that before we schedule a self defense immunity hearing we’re going to have everything done. So, we need to push that off as far as we can. That means that all the discovery needs to be done. There’s not much that needs to be done, I would imagine, for our preparation between a self defense immunity hearing, should it not be granted, and a trial.”

      So yes, Mark did speak what you said, but I think he also qualified that agreement to mean an agreement to the time requirements between the motions and other things spoken to, and not simply to the trial date, itself. Also, any perceived agreement to the trial date was contingent on a good faith completion of discovery, which has clearly not been the case here.

      • diwataman says:

        I hear what you all are saying and that’s good that you provided a fuller context but at the end of the day it’s not going to matter. Who knows, maybe Mark will press the issue maybe he wont, he was successful in getting Lester off the case after all so I guess that’s something, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see on that.

        People want to remain hopeful and optimistic, I get that, I do have a little bit of that left in me as well but I can only go off what’s before us and well, it is what it is. Any allusions to a grander enterprise on the part of O’Mara I think are misplaced, until I actually see something aside from snippets regarding the prosecution peppered throughout motions for whatever they may be I’m sticking to how it is in actuality.

        I have no idea of the legal world so I can’t possibly predict what could happen. All I know is O’Mara was told by the judge that she ordered a schedule, I didn’t call her a schedule nazi months ago for laughs so O’Mara better get to shakin’ on discovery or file something because in reality, while June may be months away, in terms to what needs to be done it might as well be tomorrow.

        • rumpole2 says:

          I always did have regard for your (pessimistic) view, but did try to maintain at least a lean towards a view a bit more positive. In essence I kept thinking that surly the penny would drop and Nelson would have a few stern words, and perhaps even make a few threats towards BDLR to stop the blatant obfuscation. After today I don’t see that happening… Madam Nelson has a timetable and she’s just going to crack the whip on scheduling and not other issues

           photo dom2_zps055dba45.gif

          • LetJusticePrevail says:

            “Madam Nelson has a timetable and she’s just going to crack the whip on scheduling and not other issues”

            Yes, it certainly seems that her one and only goal is to see this thing over, and the sooner, the better. D-Man was right about her, and his concern over Mark’s snail’s pace was spot on, long before the rest of us caught on. BDLR isn’t going to change a thing about what he is doing, because Nelson his playing right along with him. There is a train coming down the tracks, and Nelson is determined to see it reach the first station right on time. I hope that MO’M has a contingency plan for whatever expert witnesses that he plans to call, and rolls it out very quickly.

            PS: The dominatrix is cute, but somehow my minds eye keeps putting Nelson’s face on it, and the resulting effect is disturbing, to say the least!

          • myopiafree says:

            As Nelson insists – the flogging will continue – until moral improves. LOL.

      • jello333 says:

        “That means that all the discovery needs to be done.”

        Exactly. George, or ANY defendant, has a RIGHT to collect all the evidence he needs for trial BEFORE the trial begins. A judge can NOT simply say, “Sorry, you had enough time. I couldn’t care less that there’s still evidence out there that might help your client but you haven’t had time to get it yet. Too bad, so sad. Trial’s on!”

        I believe there’s a little thing called the Constitution that may come into play.

  113. mung says:

    So Jim Jones err I mean Leatherhead thinks that this whole thing was planned by MOM and West with the sole purpose of coming back and claiming that George is indigent, because they want off of the case.

  114. Lee says:

    I did not get to see the hearing today. But, by the looks of the posts above – that was a good thing. The whole thing sounds ridiculous. These are suppose to be people that seek truth and justice. Crump lists himself as involved with the Inns of the Court – aren’t they suppose to be about holding up high standards and ethics? Several of you brought up some great points about DD. A lawyer (and candidate for a judgeshipe) interviews a potential homicide ear witness, without getting her full name, age, and address. Does it over the phone because her parents are concerned – yet have no problem with a reporter being present. Was this conversation with DD’s parents recorded? I’m like the posters above – I don’t buy it. And Crump should certainly be deposed. By his own admission he stopped and stared the tape to take breaks and take questions – and by time ratio given – he sure took a lot of breaks. He may know of something that was said while the tape was off. By his own admission he sought out evidence for the arrest of Martin’s murderer – what else does he have? Being the professional he claims to be – you would think he would have conducted a more thorough interview. This was Martin’s “girlfriend” (that no one knew about/that he’s known since kindergarten) that supposedly heard the last moments of his life – you travel all around the country to give interviews to encourage the arrest and conviction of Zimmerman- but, can’t travel to DD’s home and convince her parents to let you talk one on one with her? B***S***! Courts apparently are not about justice – it is who you know and who can play the game better. And, would you please (MOM) stop talking about the TRAGIC DEATH….. – start worrying about the life and welfare of YOUR CLIENT and his family.

  115. diwataman says:

    Soooo, Crump was to be deposed today ay? No wonder why he, well his white attorney really, showed up in court today. I guess that was Natalie’s present, to show how they can avoid talkin. And boy oh boy, Crump sure does like to do a lot of talkin’ doesn’t he, except when it counts of course, lolz. And that judge, my oh my, protects everyone’s interests but the defenses.

    • rumpole2 says:

      But Crump (and his clients) want to do anything and everything they can to make sure all the ebedents comes out. He should perhaps DEMAND that somebody depose him so that the Martin/Fulton/et al “family” side of things comes out?

    • arkansasmimi says:

      Reminds me of his tweet. He will be in court , unless something happens (paraphrasing)

  116. Sharon says:

    I don’t understand the basis for being optimistic about yet another judge–or that things being done are forming the basis for an appeal.

    What reason is there to think that the BGI doesn’t also run the appeals court?

    Most of the comments seem to assume that the Florida courts operate under the rule of law. What is the reason for that assumption?

    • mung says:

      It is a lot harder to buy off 3 judges than it is 1.

      • boutis says:

        But to be on the safe side stay the heck out of Florida. Don’t visit, don’t buy anything made there (worthless warranties and contracts), and don’t let anyone you love or like do it either. They will do anything they want to you. And the citizens are apparently just dandy with it. The state needs to understand that is what this trial is projecting.

        • Sha says:

          boutis: I hear you loud and clear ! I always wonted to go to Florida and I was even plaining a trip at one time but had to cancel it . I don’t think I would wont to go now … :(

          • Angel says:

            “I always wonted to go to Florida and I was even plaining a trip at one time but had to cancel it . I don’t think I would wont to go now … :(

            I hear ya Sha!. I was thinking of going to Florida State University as they have a doctorate program I am interested in but not so sure about that anymore.

            • Sha says:

              Angel: Dont do it !!!! If you have to protect yourself they will charge you with murder and they don’t even have to have any (ebidence )…. If you don’t know somebody who knows somebody in the good old boys club you are done. Pick a school where you dont have to worry about the people in the legal system being worst then the criminals in the street with the only difference being it’s all legal. It’s a sad world we live in when this can happen in these days and times …… :(

        • mung says:

          I kind of live here so….

          • boutis says:

            Be very careful. In no way do I wish to insult the good people of Florida but they have an out of control legal and political system. If you have a corrupt legal system supported by a corrupt political system it will kill your economic base. Business cannot function without honest and efficient courts and government. Look at Illinois. It reaches the point where everyone but the crooks and their enablers leave. Then it is a downward spiral.

            • mung says:

              It’s a little less corrupt where I am. Probably no much, but a little.

              • LetJusticePrevail says:

                Mung, i lived in FL for 50 yrs and would be HAPPY to be back there. I now live in a more northern clime, which I prefer not to be specific about, and the corruption is just as bad, if not worse, here. The ONLY thing that makes FL SEEM so bad is that the SUNSHINE laws let you see what is actually happening, WHILE it happens! THAT is what is frightening, because you can SEE it coming, KNOW it is wrong, but can’t do a darn thing about it.

          • justfactsplz says:

            Aren’t we lucky? Boo hoo!

      • boricuafudd says:

        You only need 2, but Sharon has a point.

    • janc1955 says:

      Amen, Sharon. There are too many forces inside and outside Florida who want this to play out a certain way. I don’t think another judge will help the situation one bit. It’s scary.

      • Sharon says:

        I think it’s way past scary: it’s daily documentation of the power of BGI and other circle-the-wagons political interests in this nation, and it’s a demonstration of how deeply entrenched they all are.

        Multiply this X a couple thousand….and think about the judicial system (clear up to the Supremes) being this hijacked; think about the bureaucracies (state and federal) which are filled with determined idealogues who’ve been imposing their will on the nation via regulations for decades……

        Orwell and Ayn Rand had 20/20 vision: we can lay their photos down now and just look at what’s in front of us.

        The daily pile of evidence is very, very useful as a war cry for patriots and constitutionally-minded Americans. It’s mostly negative when considering George Z’s plight.

        I care for him and think of him only and always with compassion and concern. What has happened to him is serving as a tune for the trumpets to play as more and more rise up to march against our domestic enemies. I do not expect him to “rise up and play a part” as their hostage…he did not accept this role. It was thrust upon him only because he was the target moving across the screen at the moment they saw a crisis they could take advantage of.

        His personal courage and willingness to stay on his feet was something they did not expect. His willingness to stay on his feet is a choice. It’s a daily choice. That is Breitbart. And they absolutely did NOT see that coming.

        Don’t get scared. Get mad. This is one visible tumor on the body of our nation. Extrapolate. The bulls-eye that George occupies is way out on the edge of massive concentric circles of destruction that the BGI and the progs have been pushing and planning and implementing for years, decades, way over a century.

        This is one bulls-eye….way out on the edge. We are in a war for the survival of our nation.

        • auscitizenmom says:

          I agree totally.

          I have wanted to say something supportive and uplifting to George for a while now and just couldn’t find the words. I admire his quiet courage and strength in this time of so much adversity. I want him to know that it is not just the people who write in here that support him. I have friends who don’t follow CTH or any other site but they believe in his innocence. They have seen the evidence and believe in him. I pray God will continue to give him strength.

          • LetJusticePrevail says:

            Frankly, while I saw him sitting at the defense table, waiting to leave after MO’M and West had already gone, for a moment he looked like he was going to cry. Was I the only one who thought that?

        • janc1955 says:

          Sharon — I agree with every word. Unfortunately, I have a personality flaw in that I am easily overwhelmed, so I have to take things in smallish doses to avoid vapor lock. Believe me, I understand the bigger picture and while I am indeed scared, I’m also mad as hell. But in order for me to maintain my sanity and do what I need to do every day (primarily, earn a living and take care of those who are dependent on me), I have to practice “portion control” when it comes to how much I absorb and react to in a given day. But I do comprehend that GZ’s situation is in many ways a minor symptom (not taking anything away from George’s or his family’s suffering) of the life-threatening disease we face in our country today.

          • Sharon says:

            Totally understand the need for bite-size portions. Sometimes it’s all just too much…way too easy to get overwhelmed. Just about the time I’ve figured out “this is what I think I will do here” then I find out that someone else has already decided that it’s not the right thing to do!! Most of us have not had to fight for our nation’s life before, so we are all learning as we go. That’s why it’s good to have a Treehouse!! ;)

  117. yankeeintx says:

    I can’t believe she was stupid enough to admit that she is not going to allow for a 2nd deposition of Witness 8. What if W8 balks at answering questions and the defense needs to file a motion to compel. She has already made up her mind on how she will rule before they have even done the deposition.

  118. Angel says:

    Reminded today why I typically don’t substitute teach at a middle school. Thoroughly exhausted after managing behaviors of 4 classes with 36+ kids in each. I stood my ground though.

    Anyhoot, I am starting to sense that the ultimate resolution of GZ’s case is going the appellate route. I thought it amusing the judge says in one breath that MOM has enough time to prepare for trial but then asks for a postponement of Crump’s deposition.

  119. David says:

    Too funny how Natalie Jackson yaps away like an imbecile on twitter yet is such an overwhelming coward she has skipped three consecutive hearings

  120. Ron Callaway says:

    It ain’t just Florida that has crooked judges. Every court in America does what Eric Holder tells them to do if about race or Osambo eligibility.

  121. nettles18 says:

    What does Matt Gutman know that we don’t know? Today he reported Trayvon Martin was returning from a nearby deli.

    “Martin, 17, was shot and killed while walking home unarmed on Feb. 26, 2012, from a deli near his father’s fiancee’s house. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, has claimed the unarmed teen was acting suspicious and that he shot the teenager during a fight when the boy tried to get Zimmerman’s gun.”


    • HughStone says:

      There is a Boston Fish market Right next to the 7-11.

    • rooferx says:

      I believe that Gutman has another recording with inconsistent statements from DD. On the ABC recording she says “The man was watching him, so he put his hoody on” (Fits the false narrative. On the Crump recording and with BDLR she says something about the rain and that is why TM put the hoody up.
      A simple inconsistent statement, but if they were in the same room, recording the same thing, at the same time, why would that statement be different from one recording to the other?
      It’s all out there i the public. The ABC recordings for Gutman’s story and the Crump recording.
      They should say the same statements, right?

    • ftsk420 says:

      Why would he say deli everyone knows at this point it was 7-11. Unless they are gonna try and say the reason TM took so long to get back was because he stopped at a deli to. Dee Dee doesn’t mention a deli she does say corner store and I believe she was corrected for it.

  122. jordan2 says:

    Seem like this hearing has generated more interest in the case than ever. Anyone else having problems keeping up with all of the comments on all of the current threads?

    There is an awful lot to digest here. My only comment so far is this:

    Nelson is incompetent, doesn’t care about justice for George, or someone has got to her. What other explanation could there be for what happened today?

    Bernie brings “late” discovery into court today while she is addressing the issue as if nothing unusual is happening. Holy cow.

  123. Angel says:

    I personally think that if the Judge allows the affidavit in lieu of a deposition of Crump, that a precedent will be set. Witnesses to a criminal or civil case will just Fedex an affidavit of their self-serving testimony to their scheduled deposition. Hey if it works for Crump, it should work for them.

  124. Angel says:

    Looking at the video of court hearing, I am not feeling this judge. She seems to show utmost consideration to all the parties except the defense. She seems very condescending and shows irritation when she is dealing with their requests.

    • Sha says:

      Angel : I saw exactly what you did to ,but didn’t you love the fact that Omara and West didn’t take any crap off of her that seemed to really piss her off. She went above and beyond for everyone but the defense that was obvious . From the look on Omara’s face I think he is finally mad and ready for a good fight. West just looked like o.k. if this is the way you wont to play the game lets do it.

  125. Willie says:

    Hmm is anyone else having problems with the images on this
    blog loading? I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the
    blog. Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s